Topic: Major problem with game strategy
Nasenbaer
Joined: 2009-02-21, 18:17
Posts: 826  One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2009-06-05, 13:31
did you test this with current development version? The computer player got much smarter since build13 (although it is still basically stupid Anyway even if the borders would fall back once a player destroyed the military buildings, the trees placed by the forester would still stay there so that's no area influence problem, but a tree problem - I still hope you are NOT using the current svn - as the computer player should now be smart enough Cheers Nasenbaer 
Top
Quote
|
|
Phazorx
Joined: 2009-06-05, 13:02
Posts: 4  Just found this site |
Posted at: 2009-06-05, 14:30
smart enough to do what exactly? You expect current AI to build roads and flag to preoccupy construction site as LJ working on turning pines into timber? And then remove all that to make more LJs... Or AI to DESTROY own sentries/baracks to make room for more LJs? using Tino's 4196 on winxp. Falling back borders is not what i mean - that is S2 way though. What i meant is serf behaving same way as buildings do - only touch these things that are within borders (area of influence, not military control). That would make situation when rangers, after filling their area with trees, venturing into area where enemy LJ is working and planting tree right where a tree was just cut impossble.
Top
Quote
|
|
Nasenbaer
Joined: 2009-02-21, 18:17
Posts: 826 One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2009-06-05, 14:39
of course you can spend some time to place hundreds of trees, but if you do that you actually missunderstood the game concept However, the current AI does not destroy military buildings directly at the frontier (why should it?) but it will surely build lumberjacks near the frontier as long as a bit space is left. This of course might take some time - the AI takes care to have not too many constructionsites and so it won't build a lumberjack imidiatly - but surely later on...
Top
Quote
|
|
Phazorx
Joined: 2009-06-05, 13:02
Posts: 4 Just found this site |
Posted at: 2009-06-05, 15:03
My point was that by abusing shortcommings of engine or design flaws a player is capable of creating undesired situation and gain more power than one should have. By tree blocking one of enemies player get's at least time advantage at no cost (rangers do not take any resources). Which to me does not look like desired functionality, as in it seems that a low cost building/unit can defeat unlimited number of soldiers that way. Obviously soldiers should not fight serfs but they should be able to find someone to fight. And obviusly serf should not be able to confront soldiers by their actions as my example illustrates. Suggested approach can limit that functionality and isn't hard to implement (that is containg work area of a serf within border contrlled by a player). A harder but smarter way would be exteding work area to neutral territory but still not going into enemy borders. Tree blocking isspossible because ranger does go and plant trees into enemy controlled area, rendering LJ's useless when outnumbered. Of course it isn't a point of the game, but by limitting another player to some area where one can not get out from seems like extreme case of abuse to me. It can and should be prevented by design. On the other hand - building defensive structures with not-combating units makes very much sense in RTS games, but these should be passable, perhaps at cost for an offender. Walls and siege engines have been part of midivel oriented games for a long time but not in form of rangers planting trees vs lumberjacks ;o)
Top
Quote
|
|
Nasenbaer
Joined: 2009-02-21, 18:17
Posts: 826 One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2009-06-05, 15:29
Well let us test it in a multiplayer map ;). I am sure your wall of trees will not stop any soldier of a tactical good playing person (not even mine
Top
Quote
|
|
Phazorx
Joined: 2009-06-05, 13:02
Posts: 4 Just found this site |
Posted at: 2009-06-05, 15:37
So far i was only discussing AI behavior but even with real players it can be annoying at least. But even though it is possible for real player to deal with it, would you like to spend hours on choping trees (and you really need to be involved, since as soon as there is room you have to put there something or that ranger with a shovel will put a tree back in no time) while your adversary builds up economy and army?
Top
Quote
|
|
Nasenbaer
Joined: 2009-02-21, 18:17
Posts: 826 One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2009-06-05, 16:00
there is an easy solution: if there are enemy militarysites in range defeat them so you higher your territory size, if there are none simply build a militarysite to capture the land. Now there is the part with the forest - in either way the most foresters will get destroyed because you occupied the area they stand on. some lumberjacks will now start to remove the trees and as soon as you can build a new militarysite the game goes on. Of course it might take a bit longer to defeat the player but still it won't be a problem as long as the "lumberjack" player has a strong enough army (and yes I really talk about soldiers here not about lumberjacks) When you discuss that much just because of the small time you get more through placing foresters at the borders in time - well you can see it as tactic and all tactics have disadvantages - in that case the disadvantages are:
1) cost a lot of resources as each forester costs one shovel (1 iron + one planks) 2) cost a lot of buildingspace which is normally needed to have a strong infrastructure for producing weapons... and even those walls of trees are passable after some time - of course you get some more time, but only some more time So YES there are some (and really just some) situations when such a tactic would be logical: e.g. you have not yet reached a mountain, you already see the mountains, but must expand with at least two more militarysites, while the enemy already reached you on the other site of your area - in that case placing treees would be a good tactic to get a bit more time until the enemy reaches your headquarters. Anyway I don't see a problem in it - actually it was never planned as feature, but the more I think about it, you can really see it as feature! What is wrong in having more ways for tactics than just placing militarysites at specific points? You know why Arminius won against Varus ? POINT! I see no point for more discussion here! It's a feature not a bug!!!
Top
Quote
|
|
DuneCat
Joined: 2009-08-21, 18:20
Posts: 2 Just found this site |
Posted at: 2009-08-22, 23:10
(This is such an amazing game, btw,) Military buildings usually get reinforcements when attacked, but things like the headquarters will fall as soon as your army touches the front door. This means that if other buildings were to be attacked, they will burn down right away, so you would send one soldier to each building and destroy their economy, such a change might frustrate players and stagnate the game, as the borders would mostly be raided instead of normal conquest. What I liked about Settlers (and this game too) is the honor code of the soldiers, fighting wars with no civilian casualties I'll build an army of sheep, deer, and cows, and train them to attack enemy soldiers, muah ha ah!!! Edited: 2009-08-22, 23:25
Top
Quote
|
) - anyway when there are a lot of trees it should place lumberjacks near there to harvest them.
